LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why do you bother, YMS?I've told you what I mean, and you quote a dictionary which disagrees with what I've said.What's the point of claiming you want to understand what I say, but keep resorting to assumptions that are not what I say?If you want to understand what dictionary definitions (those non-socially products, The Real Truth, eternal objects) say, why not read more dictionaries?Why pretend? Why waste my time, and yours?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird, I'm trying to understand you.Frankly, I find this difficult to believe. You seem to want to make me say what you understand, rather than you understand what I write.Unless you start from the view that we have different ideological starting points (that is, you have to understand both my and your ideologies), which isn't agreeing with each others, but understanding each others.
YMS wrote:Marx was very precise in his termininology…I disagree. I think Marx was a terribly unclear writer, who didn't use the same term for the same concept consistently. That's not least of the reasons I think workers today have to make Marx much clearer for our revolutionary purposes.
YMS wrote:… (this is what makes his works difficult to read sometimes)No, what makes his works difficult to read is his poor writing style, combined with the complete unfamiliarity of his arguments to those brainwashed by the bourgeoisie (ie. all of us in this society). His works 'sound mad' to those who start from their bourgeois ideology. Critical thought is necessary, including about 'science', 'objective knowledge' and 'Truth'.
YMS wrote:Precision is important in debate.I agree, and Marx often doesn't provide it. But you are the one changing/substituting what I write, for what you wish that I'd written.
YMS wrote:You can call it word play if you like, but it is quite galling after an hours debate about the state of traffic to find you were discussing Edinburgh when I was talking about Carlisle.Little tip, YMS. When I write 'Edinburgh', don't read 'Carlisle'.
YMS wrote:I note your quiet acceptance of 'produce' rather than create. Can you now add transform to the mix?Here we go, again. In this context, 'produce' and 'create' are synonyms for human activity. If you wish to reserve one for 'god and nothing' (ie. 'creation'), that's your choice, not mine. If you wish to use 'transform' to alter the meaning of 'produce/create', then you're 'adding' to confuse. If you simply mean 'produce/create', why add another term?Finally, purpose.You should take note of this.My purpose to clarify an epistemology suitable for the revolutionary proletariat, as a part of its class consciousness, to help build a democratic politics, including in the social production of scientific knowledge and truth.If you have a different purpose (individual knowledge, personal clarification, defence of bourgeois science, piss-taking, whatever), you should declare it, because it will impact upon your understanding of Marx.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I didn't ask what Marx says (nor imply anything about what Marx says) I asked a simple question, for you and your understanding alone: is it possible to enter into a relationship with nothing?[my bold]LOL!Back to solipsism. The bedrock which you build upon.Now, openly, not just no democracy, no social production, no proletariat, no workers' power, no politics……just YMS's simple ideology: the individual, alone.Why don't you come out of the bourgeois closet, YMS? You'll feel much more relaxed with yourself!
For those who've had enough of YMS's word-games, which have nothing to whatsoever with Jordan's book or Marx's ideas, here's a further attempt at explanation.For Marx, to 'know' is to 'use'.So, to 'know nature' we have to 'use nature'.The question of 'what is nature when its not being used by us?' is meaningless to Marx.Marx calls the 'ingredient into our usage' 'inorganic nature', and the product of our usage 'organic nature'.This is the key part of Marx's epistemology: the active subject, which produces its own object.Activity and production are essential concepts within Marx's epistemology.When we want to 'know' anything, we have to ask 'who produced it?' and 'for whose purposes and interests was it produced?'.Because we produce anything that we can know, we can also change that product.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lets try getting away from blank sheets, clearly that's confused you, Can we enter into a relationship with nothing?Still changing what Marx says, eh? Don't you get tired of making things up?Marx argues that we are in a relationship with 'inorganic nature'.Your question about 'a relationship with nothing' is an attempt to confuse what Marx argues. You've done this so many times that I can't put it down to simple ignorance – you are purposely sowing confusion.You wish to 'know' 'inorganic nature' 'as it is', as 'nature-in-itself'. Why not expose your ideology?
For other trying to follow this thread, I'll re-use an analogy that I used earlier.Marx argues that we live in a world of 'pies' (objects).We are the baker that bakes our pies.Pies are the product of our social theory and practice upon 'dough' (inorganic nature).Dough only has meaning as an ingredient into our baking.Those who wish to 'know dough' outside of any active relationship with the baker are faced with an impossible task. They wish to know 'dough-in-itself'.The bourgeois claim that dough creates pies (without them baking those pies), and that they simply 'discover' the 'pies' on the shelf, and just hand the pies to us, for our consumption. Thus, we can't change the pies that we consume.Finally, 'dough-in-itself' is another term for 'god'.Those who claim to seek 'dough', prior to our creating of our pies, are religious, have faith in dough, and seek god.
So, now you're playing with words.Unsuprisingly, it always ends like this.You list the words I mention, but outside of any context of your political ideology. So, 'isolated terms' which reflect your 'isolated individual' ideology.Logic is not a strongpoint of yours, either."We cannot enter into a relationship with a blank sheet."'Unknown sheet' does not mean 'blank sheet'. You always do this – you exchange what I write for what you wish that I had written.Marx argues that the 'sheet' is unknown. It can only become known with a knower.You argue that this amounts to a 'blank sheet'.You claim that the 'sheet' can be known without a knower – that's why you claim that the 'sheet' has 'properties' outside of the 'knower' – for you, the passive knower simply finds properties of the 'sheet-in-itself'.For Marx, the active knower creates the 'sheet-for-the-knower'. There isn't a 'sheet' (marked or blank) simply waiting to be passively 'discovered'. Any 'sheet-we-know' is a social product. And since we create the 'sheet-we-know', we can change it.Anyway, I'll leave you to ignore what Marx, Jordan and I write.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not seeking to know Nature in itself, but what nature for us is.'Nature for us' is 'properties for us'.You're arguing for 'properties in themselves'.So, you are seeking to know 'nature in itself'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:*Ahem* "Emancipated labour", "Common ownership""Humans, without power": do you see power existing in socialism? "mental states accord with its lived experience" is that not another way of saying "theory and practice" oh, I think it is. I also didn't mention moon rockets, calamari nor bovril.As I said, no workers/proletariat, democracy or revolution."mental states accord with its lived experience" is that not another way of saying "theory and practice" oh, I think it is." – no, it's a way of referring to 'individuals', their brains and biological activity, and slyly avoids mentioning 'social theory and practice', or 'democratic production'. Perhaps you're only fooling yourself."do you see power existing in socialism?"This is the clincher – of course 'power' will exist in socialism. Only those who claim 'individual sovereignty', will disagree with the view that socialism will involved social disagreement, debates, votes, decisions, and minorities who lose the social argument.That's why you avoid terms like 'democracy' and 'social production'.Why not come clean about your ideology, YMS? Are you simply unaware of it, or consciously hiding it from everyone?
Young Master Smeet wrote:A relationship involves two things, if one part adds nothng to the relationship, there is no relationship. Can you at least agree with that basic premise? If not, where is it flawed?Your argument is flawed because the 'subject' is the 'active side'.If you wish to 'know' the 'properties' of 'inorganic nature', that is, 'nature-in-itself', then you are separating subject and object.I keep telling you this, what Marx said, and what Jordan says Marx said, but you keep replacing it with your own ideological claim, that 'inorganic nature has properties-in-themselves'.Your claim differs from Marx's. Marx argues for the social production of 'organic nature' (or, 'nature-for-us'). You're arguing for 'nature-in-itself'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Emancipated labour, under conditions of common ownership allows for the realisation of unalienated humanity, one that's mental states accord with its lived experience: a practical unity of actions and control over the world and its collective social enviornment, a conscious association that knows itself to be a human community. Its thought objects would emerge from the discussion between humans, without power, thus enabling discourse to be free and unfettered, a language of a hamanity without distortions needed to keep a subject populaion in check. The free development of each would be the condition for the free development of all, and each human would be an end in themself.You'll all notice that YMS never mentions proletariat/workers, democracy or revolution.YMS is a 'materialist' and an individualist, and wishes to realise the bourgeois dream for 'free individuals', and stresses 'practical' rather than 'social theory and practice', and avoids social concepts like 'power'.
This view of the relationship between subject and object (that the active subject produces the object) is why Marx's epistemology is a revolutionary one, and how and why it differs from the claims of the bourgeoisie. They claim that they 'discover' a 'pre-existing' world of 'objects', of 'things-in-themselves'.If the bourgeoisie are correct, then we can't change 'objective-properties'; if Marx is correct, then we can change 'properties-for-us'.I'm aware that this claim is unfamiliar (or even downright objectionable) to those brainwashed by bourgeois science, but nevertheless it is the underpinning of a revolutionary, democratic epistemology, which can provide the class conscious proletariat with the 'theory' needed for their 'practice', when they set out to change their world.
YMS wrote:A relationship for necesarily implies properties (we've been over this several tiems) which your view would deny, since you cannot admit without your whole argument crashign down) that inogranic nature brings anything to the party.YMS, either the subject-object relationship has to be present, and the subject is the 'active side', or the object has 'properties-in-itself'.I'll only say this once more, because you're not reading what I (or Marx or Jordan) write: 'properties' are a product of the relationship (ie. 'properties-for-us') and are not 'properties of objects' (ie. 'properties-in-themselves').If you want 'citations', either read what I've written already in my replies, or Jordan's text, or Marx's works.You are a 'materialist', and your ideology argues that 'properties exist outside of the subject'. Marx does not argue this, because Marx is not a 'materialist'.'Inorganic nature' doesn't have 'properties' – 'properties' are brought into 'existence' for a 'subject'. The subject is the 'active side', so 'properties' are always 'properties-for' an active subject. The active subject produces its world.This is why Marx argues for 'social labour' and 'social production', and always stresses 'relationships' within which we humans are the producers of our reality.As you say, "we've been over this several times", but you won't accept that there is a difference in what we're claiming. I have no problem accepting that we employ differing ideologies, but you don't seem to be able to see where your claims differ from Marx's, no matter how many times (more than 'several') that I (or Jordan) point this out to you.Summary:YMS – 'inorganic nature has properties' – they are 'properties-in-themselves';Marx – 'inorganic nature does not have properties' – they are social products, 'properties-for-us'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:My ideology is that of a Marxist and a humanist, I consider that human beings exist within the world, that ideas are cultural and material, that ideology is lived. Our unconscious exists in the world around us, which is structured semiotically through deferred meaning. I agreed with the Bakhtin school that signs are polyphonic and contested, meaning is historical. I agree with Serle that language is intentional and not merely algorithmic.All you have to tell us now, YMS, is how this ideology of yours allows workers to democratically control the production of their world, how workers can produce their truth.
